Favorite court case(s)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inspired by the funniest case titles.

1. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 13 S. Ct. 981, 37 L. Ed. 745 (I doubt this will ever change - I celebrate its anniversary every May 10th)
2. Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co., 173 N.W.2d 619 (Wis. 1970)
3. Weinberg v. Edelstein, 201 Misc. 343, 110 N.Y. Supp. 2d 806

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mapp v. Ohio is deliciously seedy, involving as it does porn and an attempt to off Don King.

[limac333]

Just because I find the case amusing, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

[© tweed]

the one that added the exclusionary rule, forget the name

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the one that added the exclusionary rule, forget the name

I think that's Mapp v. Ohio, though that only binded it to the states, the precedent on the federal level had existed prior, the most important case probably being Weeks v. United States.

[SPC]

Lochner v. New York

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lochner v. New York

So not one of the decisions that actually made anybody's life better, then. Gotcha.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lochner v. New York

So not one of the decisions that actually made anybody's life better, then. Gotcha.

Especially since there are tons of decisions that did make peoples' lives better that libertarians would no doubt be fond of.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lochner v. New York

So not one of the decisions that actually made anybody's life better, then. Gotcha.

Especially since there are tons of decisions that did make peoples' lives better that libertarians would no doubt be fond of.

Like Mapp v. Ohio!

[J. J.]

Commonwealth vs. Allsup, 1978, 481 Pa. 313 (1978), 392 A.2d 1309,especially the footnotes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Commonwealth vs. Allsup, 1978, 481 Pa. 313 (1978), 392 A.2d 1309,especially the footnotes.

A stripper, J.J.? 

[J. J.]

Commonwealth vs. Allsup, 1978, 481 Pa. 313 (1978), 392 A.2d 1309,especially the footnotes.

A stripper, J.J.? 

Read footnote three.  MAHAHAHAHA!  The funny thing is, I know a now former defense attorney who, I think, used this precedent successfully.  The ADA who was prosecuting is now facing drug charges. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Ahh... footnote 3 is just weird.

That reminds me of Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296402 N.E.2d 1051 (1980), a case I used in my recent reserach memo on an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

[J. J.]

Ahh... footnote 3 is just weird.

That reminds me of Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296402 N.E.2d 1051 (1980), a case I used in my recent reserach memo on an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Well, Allsup has that, shall we say, beaten.  Not to mention that Allsup, herself, had musical talent. 

I'm just picturing the PA Supreme Court writing the opinion.  Footnote 3 gets my vote for best footnote ever. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)

For being the first case I read in law school that made me want to scream and kill somebody for it's sheer complexity.  Reading opinions from the 19th century is a task in itself.  The fact that the issue is so damn convoluted made it a nightmare.  

Why do I love it?  It challenged me. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)

For being the first case I read in law school that made me want to scream and kill somebody for it's sheer complexity.  Reading opinions from the 19th century is a task in itself.  The fact that the issue is so damn convoluted made it a nightmare.  

Why do I love it?  It challenged me. 

Anybody who enjoys civil procedure has something wrong with them.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)

For being the first case I read in law school that made me want to scream and kill somebody for it's sheer complexity.  Reading opinions from the 19th century is a task in itself.  The fact that the issue is so damn convoluted made it a nightmare.  

Why do I love it?  It challenged me. 

Anybody who enjoys civil procedure has something wrong with them.

I actually did like it at first, but once we moved beyond in personem juris. it started to become infuriating.

[memphis]

Lochner v. New York

So not one of the decisions that actually made anybody's life better, then. Gotcha.

Especially since there are tons of decisions that did make peoples' lives better that libertarians would no doubt be fond of.

Texas V Lawrence springs to mind. Who would want the government to have the power to control citizens' private sex lives?

[Lief 🗽]

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)

For being the first case I read in law school that made me want to scream and kill somebody for it's sheer complexity.  Reading opinions from the 19th century is a task in itself.  The fact that the issue is so damn convoluted made it a nightmare. 

Why do I love it?  It challenged me. 

Anybody who enjoys civil procedure has something wrong with them.

I actually did like it at first, but once we moved beyond in personem juris. it started to become infuriating.

I like Civil Procedure (or at least think it raises some interesting issues if you dig into it), but part of that might be that my professor intentionally skipped Pennoyer, which I've heard nothing but terrifying things about.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)

For being the first case I read in law school that made me want to scream and kill somebody for it's sheer complexity.  Reading opinions from the 19th century is a task in itself.  The fact that the issue is so damn convoluted made it a nightmare. 

Why do I love it?  It challenged me. 

Anybody who enjoys civil procedure has something wrong with them.

I actually did like it at first, but once we moved beyond in personem juris. it started to become infuriating.

I like Civil Procedure (or at least think it raises some interesting issues if you dig into it), but part of that might be that my professor intentionally skipped Pennoyer, which I've heard nothing but terrifying things about.

Pennoyer wasn't that bad.  It made sense to me.  I mean... there's not too much harm in skipping it, since it's not good law anymore, but it was a nice way of easing me into the subject of personal jurisdiction for me.

[© tweed]

we 'read' Pennoyer in my second of seven weeks of law school.  totally unreadable and unintelligible.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/ussct_cases/us_v_joseph_1876.htm

The ugly bit is at the end.  "If the defendant is on the lands of the pueblo, without the consent of the inhabitants [this was not, in fact, in doubt], he may be ejected, or punished civilly by a suit for trespass, according to the laws regulating such matters in the Territory." Except these laws were expressly not applicable to the pueblo lands.

Overturned here

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=231&invol=28

[Landslide Lyndon]

Loving v. Virginia

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Atkins v. Virginia

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I know of one that would be interesting (but obviously isn't real): how about Tweedledum v. Tweedledee?

Anyway, I mentioned I am the Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts in Edmond Frank MacGillivray Jr. Now v. Michigan State Police.

Some of my other favorites (mostly lawsuits):

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925689,00.html-- I don't know the title, but this girl sued Borden, the then-makers of Cracker Jack, because she didn't get a prize in her box.

There was another one where a guy sued a hospital in Nebraska because the chemicals they used to clean the restroom toilet seats supposedly did physical damage to him.  There was also another where a couple in Sweden got fined for naming their son Brfxxcxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (which they pronounced "Albin"). 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mabury v madison set the stage for judicial review. No act by congress cant be challenged by scrt. Setting up a showdown between chase crt and fugitive slave law. Brown and roe.